bl275 at cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Diaz) writes:
: [...]
: Who needs damned peer review so that the Journal of Aren't We So
: Hot can charge you for each page and publish it two years later.
: Without peer review, a lot more shit might get published, but
: perhaps people will take the initiative and send manuscripts to
: respected colleagues before submitting them to the Bionet Open
: International Electronic Journal of Biology? Or, you can post
: a message announcing that you have submitted a paper to a print
: journal but will send copies of your unpublished manuscript (or
: make them available via anonymous FTP, etc) to anyone who
: wants a copy.
How are the "respected colleagues" you plan to send your manuscripts to
different to the reviewers that the established journals would send
your manuscript to?
I suspect that the only difference is that they do not have the option
of criticising your (hypothetical) manuscript objectively to the editor
but have to confront you personally with their opinions of your work.
Peer review is *fundamental* to establishing the scientific credibility
of your work regardless of the medium in which you choose to publish.
If you can't convince an _objective_ peer about the virtue of your work
you should be asking if it is worth communicating at all, not trying to
find a method of avoiding valid criticism.
Tony
--
Tony Travis <ajt at uk.ac.sari.rri> | Dr. A.J.Travis
| Rowett Research Institute,
| Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen,
| AB2 9SB. UK. tel 0224-712751